These are anxious times for theological schools and seminaries, more so than normal, anyway. The plight of several seminaries (closings, downsizing, layoffs) has recently made the rounds in the religious press and newsmagazines. And talk about viability and relevance is lively among faculties, including questions about how long the shelf life of the classic M.Div. will be. Comments like these made by alumnus in response to a survey only serves to increase the angst of some professors:
“Taking Hebrew helped shape some of my thoughts and understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, but other than that, I haven’t found it to be very useful in my week-in, week-out work with youth.” “I have never been asked a question about my Greek knowledge level. Luckily for me, there are Greek-English interlinears.”
Given that seminaries provide leaders for congregations, and that congregations are in a state of perpetual flux in today’s cultures, it’s not a surprise that everything seems up in the air and uncertain. In times of acute anxiety we predictably hear the call from one camp for a return to the foundations and classics, and a just as passionate call from another for a move toward more pragmatic and “relevant†emphasis in theological studies. Those conflicting cries have always struck me as a false dichotomy between theory and practice, and a false choice between appreciation for classical disciplines and the pragmatic.
Michael L. Lewis, in “Art and (Wo)man at Yale,†The Wall Street Journal (April 24, 2008, p. D9) can help us appreciate that theological studies is not the only educational discipline in the grips of trying to find a new voice of relevance for the sake of viability in the marketplace of vocational and educational choices.
He wrote:
It is often said that great achievement requires in one’s formative years two teachers: a stern taskmaster who teaches the rules and an inspirational guru who teaches one to break the rules. But they must come in that order. Childhood training in Bach can prepare one to play free jazz and ballet instruction can prepare one to be a modern dancer, but it does not work the other way around. One cannot be liberated from fetters one has never worn; all one can do is to make pastiches of the liberations of others.
It seems to me that there is a tidy parallel here between the arts and theological education in this regard. A classic seminary M.Div. still matters because it inculcates into the student the knowledge, perspective, and theological discernment he or she will need to imagine the new and give shape in legitimate ways to the yet unimagined expressions of the Church. Without that foundation in our rising pastors and congregational leaders future churches will be built on the sandy foundation of predilection, whim, and fickle winds of trickery “craftiness and deceitful scheming.” And admittedly, churches already sufffer enough of that today.
Some observers predict that within a decade there will be thirty or so less seminaries and theological schools across the American landscape. My own hunch is that those schools that in the interim can be imaginative and resilient will come out on top. And they’ll need to be as pioneering and innovative about theological education as they will need to be responsible in their appreciation for Tradition and Orthodoxy.
This is a very important insight: we need both structure and freedom, but we have to learn the structure first. I wonder how this should translate into how ministerial education is organized in the future. Should we expect to get the structure at the B.A. level and then be ‘liberated” at the M.Div level? But what about those who enter seminaries with a non-religion major from college? Is it possible to provide both the rules and the innovation in a three-year M.Div. program? If not, can we expect most ministers to take full advantage of continuing education opportunities? Lots to think about here. Thank you!
In my opinion, the contribution–and necessity–of a Bachelor’s degree is its wider foundational perspective–upon which an MDiv is built. I am an advocate–with few exceptions–of a liberal arts education at the college level–not a major in Religion–for future MDiv. students. The combination, then, at the MDiv level, of “theory”–knowledge–and praxis–practice–needs to be an interweaving of both facets of preparation for the minister of today–and tomorrow–in my opinion. I agree that the MDiv degree will not soon disappear–but that creative ways of better equipping a seminarian in a global, technology-rich world–is essential. What do you think? DB